TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondone the delay of 296 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee purchased an immovable property in plot no.9, Block No.45, TS No.1031/2, admeasuring 216.88 sq yds, Waltair Ward, Visakhapatnam from Smt. Davuluri Swapna, non-resident and Sri Kodali Rajendra Prasad, a resident. The AO proposed to treat the assessee as an assessee in default u/s. 201(1) and accordingly issued a letter. There was no response from the assessee. Again a show cause notice dated 20/03/2018 was issued for which also there was no response from the assessee. The AO then treated the assessee as an assessee in default U/s. 201(1) of the Act and passed order U/s. 201(1) of the Act along with the interest U/s. 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Hyderabad. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the orders passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount would amount to duplication of interest in respect of the said tax amount, which is not permissible under law. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have known that section 50C of the Act is self-contained and the deeming fiction under this cannot be extended for determining tax liability U/s. 195 of the Act. 8. For these and such other ground/grounds, that may be adduced at the time of hearing of subject appeal, the appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal that the order passed U/s. 201/201(1A) of the Act dated 27/3/2018 be quashed or grant such other relief as this authority may deem fit, in the interest of justice." 5. The assessee also submitted a petition for withdrawal of the grounds no.3, 5 & 6. Since the Grounds no.1 and 8 are general in nature the assessee pressed the Grounds no. 1, 2 and 7 only. 6. The Ld. AR argued that the AO has not given any reasonable time to respond which is against the principles of natural justice. The Ld. AR also contended that various High Courts and Tribunals have held that generally four years was treated as a period of time limit for initiating action U/s. 201(1) / 201(1A) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. The identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Bheemarasetty Sunitha cited supra and this Tribunal after considering the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr Vs. Union of India & Anr and the decision of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation [305 ITR 0137], the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [365 ITR 0560 (Bom)] held that the reasonable time limit for issue of notice u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is 4 years. In cases, where the notice is issued beyond 4 years, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT held that the same is barred by limitation. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of this Tribunal in para No.6 to 7 which reads as under : "6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The relevant provisions of section 201(1A) of the Act is reproduced as under: "201(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that subsection does not de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also of the view that the decision favourable to the assessee is required to be taken. Accordingly following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court we hold that reasonable period is 4 years for initiating of proceedings u/s 201/201(1A). In the instant case the property was registered on 18.7.2007 and the assessee is liable to deduct the TDS during the F.Y.2007-08 and the 4 years time limit for initiating action u/s 201/201A expires before March 2012. In the instant case, notice u/s 195 treating the assessee as assessee in default was issued on 11.08.2013 beyond the 4 years of the financial year in which the assessee required to deduct tax at source. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201 and 201(1A) is 4 years and it is barred by limitation. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we are unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the order passed u/s 201 / 201(1A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 8. Similarly, the Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/ s U.B.Electronic Instruments Limited cited supra held that the 4 years is reasonable time. For ready r....